Response to a Defense of 4 Point "Calvinism"

This is an article I found by Kevin Bauder defending the "4 point" position. I had a few comments that I had written down as I was reading, and I wanted to know what anybody else thought. I have nothing against Dr. Bauder; as a matter of fact, I hear nothing but good things about him from everyone I know. I hear that he is interested in moving the fundamentalist movement in a more positive direct, and I greatly appreciate that. I would love to assist him in that effort if I can, but in the case of the article that I’m linking to we disagree. Please take the time to follow this link and read the short article that Dr. Bauder has written before reading my response.

Thanks. Here’s the link:

http://www.thevine.co.nz/article/read/29175/1127/logic-limited-atonement?print


The question is not whether Dr. Bauder has arrived at logical conclusions. The question is whether he has started with logical premises, and I would argue that he hasn’t.
For example, Dr. Bauder begins with the premise that Christ died to provide salvation not merely for the elect of the Father, but for each and every person without exception. This, I believe is a definitely faulty premise.

First of all, let’s consider how a man is saved: Paul, speaking to believers in the book of Ephesians, says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…” Now, the question is whether someone can be saved without having been given grace and faith. Considering the passage before us, we have to ask the question, “What does the word ‘this’ refer to in the phrase ‘And this is not your own doing’?” Without getting into the Greek behind it, I think that we can safely say that it is referring to all three things mentioned previously. Grace is definitely not something that we can conjure up on our own; we are definitely not saved by our own doing; and (I assume Dr. Bauder would agree with me on this one) we, in our depraved, separated, spiritually dead condition, certainly did not spontaneously generate the necessary faith towards God. For the moment, I will consider this last point something that we agree on; but if anyone would like to investigate further, go check out Philippians 1:29 and II Tim. 2:24-26.

Next, we must ask ourselves whether it is legitimate to assert that Christ has actually provided salvation for all those who have, do, and will end up in hell. Can we truly affirm this if they never have saving faith? If in order to be saved, a man must exercise faith in Christ as his all sufficient Savior, and the unbelieving multitudes who are suffering in hell because they never expressed this gift of faith, has Christ truly provided for their salvation? If He didn’t provide for this required faith, did He really provide for their salvation? Was it Christ’s intention to provide faith for the non-elect? I won’t even consider that to be true or that anyone would agree to that because of the potentially blasphemous conclusions that we would have to arrive at if it were. So, if we agree that Christ didn’t intend to provide faith for the non-elect then we must conclude that Christ never actually intended to purchase them fully; He never intended to provide salvation for them because a full provision would include the gift of saving faith that cannot be separated from the gift of salvation.

I will consider one more thing. I’m assuming that the other option would be that Christ never intended to die in the place of anyone in particular (which denies Penal Substitution), and that the purpose of His death was merely to provide a way for God to justify sinners by providing a general sacrifice which is meritorious enough for God to apply it to particular sinners’ accounts whenever He decides to do so. Well, I don’t think this works either because that would negate the teachings of Christ in passages such as John 6, 10 and 17.

In John 6, Jesus, when explaining why the unbelieving Jews are not believing explains that they do not and CANNOT believe unless drawn by the Father, and that all that the Father draws (based on His predetermination) WILL COME. So, if the Father has sent the true Bread down from heaven in order to give life to the world (vv. 32-33) and this life that He gives is eternal life (vv. 50-51, 54, 58), was Christ sent to provide this eternal life for each and every individual in the world without exception? No. We can all agree on that, so we must conclude that the eternal life which He intended to provide was specifically intended for the ones whom the Father had chosen to draw.

In John 10, Jesus is illustrating His relationship to His sheep as the Good Shepherd. He demonstrates the closeness of the Shepherd for His sheep, which is something that His audience would have understood clearly. I’m , quite honestly, not all that studied in the historical relationships between shepherd and their sheep; but the illustrations Jesus gave concerning the way that shepherds must’ve felt for their sheep gives me the idea that they were very close to them and were not willing to neglect them in any way. I doubt the same could be said for the other shepherd’s sheep that they knew, let alone the relationship Jesus would have had with the Devil’s sheep. The bottom line in this passage is that Jesus lays down His life for His sheep (vv. 11, 14, 17-18) and He gives them eternal life (v. 28). He also says that the Jews don’t believe because they’re not His sheep (vv.25-26), which reminds me of the things I mentioned earlier about the gift of faith.

Some have argued that the conclusion that I come to concerning Jesus not laying down His life for the Jews because He says that He laid down His life for His sheep is merely a logical conclusion based on ambiguous premises. My intention here, however, is simply to provide evidence for a substitutionary atonement. On the other hand, since the people who have argued from the perspective that Jesus may have meant that He lays down His life for everyone else and that His sheep were the only ones He was mentioning in this particular instance, I would have to ask if He also gives everyone else eternal life since He also mentions this as something that He does in behalf of His sheep. I think that my conclusion is valid, but I’m open to critique.

I won’t say much about John 17 right now because I need to get to my homework and study, but Jesus was pretty clear about His relationship to His people again by saying things like, “…you [the Father] have given him [Christ] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him,” and “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world BUT for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” (all emphases mine)Finally, he prays for the Church in this present time: "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word…” Notice that He is very specific in His prayer, making it very clear that He is considering all that the Father had previously chosen, not the “whole world.”

I have one last objection. Dr. Bauder says:

“Prior to their conversion, even the elect are dead in trespasses and sins. Until they believe they remain children of wrath.”

This issue was raised to me not too long ago. I would affirm the first sentence; but it seems as though the second sentence is taken from Ephesians 2:3, and I would have to disagree with its usage in Dr. Bauder’s article.

I think that from the perspective of the elect sinner, we were dead in sin and had no desire for God whatsoever. We, according to this passage in Ephesians 2, were totally depraved in our nature. Paul’s goal in this passage (vv. 1-3) is to remind us of who we were, and how our minds and desires operated “…like the rest of mankind.” He points this out in order to point our attention back to the fact that God “raised us up” in order that we may see the things which God has done for us. And by pointing this out, he is pointing to the fact that God did this for us as an undeserving bunch of degenerate sinners. In short, the context indicates that Paul is speaking of our condition from our perspective, not God’s. This passage, therefore, is not a good support for the idea that the atonement wasn’t actually applied at the cross.

In summary, I believe that Limited Atonement is not only true, but it is a magnificent way in which God in Christ has decided to glorify Himself. And, as Shai Linne has put it: this is not controversy for the sake of controversy or theological nitpicking. Salvation is of the Lord, and Christ’s particular role in the bringing about of the salvation of the select persons that the Father has chosen and that the Spirit brings to spiritual life is every bit as important and meaningful and purposeful as the other two persons of the Godhead. This means that it is worth defending.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Suffering From Malnutrion

I shouldn’t be writing this right now. I should be studying or reading, but in order to keep the masses happy, I will post!

I’ve been meaning to compose these thoughts for about a week now, but the last post had such a positive response (any response at this point would be positive); and I have been participating with the feedbackers. The subject that has been pressing upon me has not just recently sprung up in my mind. This has been weighing on me for some time now, and I would just like to voice my opinion about it. As many of you may already know, I don’t suffer from a lack of opinion on many things; I hope you all can agree with me on this concern, though. I also pray that if the Lord hasn’t already burdened you with this that He will after you ponder the following thoughts.

My concern is the well being of the church in America today. These concerns may well hold true in other countries, but I live in America which mean I only get to see firsthand the results of what I will suggest is the cause in this fine nation. As we notice the things on TV and on the bookshelves at Wal-mart or the local Christian bookstore being produced by televangelists and other mainstream “Christian” pastors (rather, motivational speakers), we may chuckle at the absurdity of the message that those popular authors/entertainers are propagating. I, myself, feel an uncontrollable sense of disgust and even a bit of anger. That anyone would take them seriously is rather absurd, but the fact of the matter is that the businessmen and women producing these materials are becoming very successful as they lead countless souls to hell. I hope we can all get a little angry over these things, but I think we must realize that this is only a result—the symptom of the real problem. Now I want to turn from this point to what I believe is the root of the problem.

I can’t speak for everyone that may be reading this, but I sure would like to be able to stand up in front of the entire population of the U.S. and proclaim the truth of God’s word over against the serious error that is plaguing so-called “Christianity” today. Where have we gone wrong? I know many people would claim that it is due to the masses of “seekers” with “itching ears,” and I would agree to a certain extent. Certainly there are millions of citizens of the United States who are looking for a feel good pill, and they get that prescription filled at the local church; and they also, I’m sure, get their sense of appeasing God done in the process. By the way, I think that apart from the Biblical evidence for elder rule church government the real life evidence is tremendously strong (maybe I’ll cover this in another post). These evidences being granted, I don’t believe that this is the real root problem here—even though I realize that these current events have been prophesied.

The prophecies of end times disaster within the church (which has been evident since the inception of the last days), I believe, are simply giving us an observation of the result of a lack of the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-16). Like I said, this is not simply a modern occurrence. Dissenters have been a thorn in the side of the church since the very beginning, BUT what are the local churches doing to secure their borders from them and send out troops? Since Paul was traveling this planet planting churches all over the known world false teachers have been pushing their own agendas (rather, Satan’s). And there have been those great heroes of the past who have stood up against them here and there, but what is the realistic solution to our problem? Should we sit back and watch the John MacArthur’s and James Whites of this country confront and refute the false teachers while we applaud the Lord for the work that they’re doing, or do we step up and do the work that we were called to do?

Whether we openly admit it or have even taken the time to think through it or not, we all can recognize the fact that if each pastor took the time to continue to learn in order to teach their sheep the deeper things of the faith we would be a much healthier church. Some pastors would say, “My people wouldn’t understand these things and it would just confuse them.” I say, “Maybe YOU’RE confused over these things, and if not, it’s YOU’RE job to make them UNconfused.” I’m pretty sure that, as a pastor, you are called to teach DOCTRINE, right? Here’s a good verse for the pastor: “He (the overseer/pastor/elder) must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Tit 1:9 ESV) We also read in Hebrews an admonition to progress beyond the elementary teachings of the faith in order that we may seek to know the deeper things of Christ (Heb. 6:1-2). These admonitions are given to those who have “their powers of discernment trained” (Heb. 5:14). “See!” the pastor says, “The deeper things are not for those without discernment!” But when we read the next part of the verse we are told that the one who has discernment obtains this “…by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” How do they practice this art? By having their minds transformed by the word. I don’t think I’ll have any disagreement there, will I?

Back home we had an instance when a man who had attended our church for years wrote a book denying the deity of Christ and the veracity of Scripture tried to, and I believe he succeeded, turn people away from the faith. At this point, my dad (who is the pastor) preached a masterful sermon refuting the book, and many were more grounded in their faith as a result. I praise the Lord for that; and this is an example of something that is necessary, but I believe that the refutations and training in the Scriptures should be a constant--in every church. Some of you may be blessed to attend a church that does confirm the major doctrines of the faith and supplement them with Scriptural exposition demonstrating these truths on a regular basis which is outstanding, but in my experience that kind of teaching is scarce.

What are we afraid of? We should be afraid of answering to God for the shoddy job of shepherding that we’re doing. Why are some pastors not continuing their education? Why don’t we teach our people about the great heroes of the past and the errors and accomplishments that marked their lives? Why don’t we proclaim the truths that the Holy Spirit has taught the church over the years from His word? Why don’t we supply our people with responses to the cults when they come knocking? Why don’t we encourage our people to witness to them instead of slamming the door in their faces? Why are we living like practical atheists and not fearfully working out our salvation and being salt and light? Why are preachers fashioning sermons that are merely motivational speeches to encourage the people emotionally instead of equipping them spiritually for battle in this evil world?

The world is a very dangerous place for Christ’s sheep. The appointed shepherds of the flock must be toiling relentlessly to prepare and protect them from the opposition. We need not point the finger at anyone, and indeed we cannot until we take the beams out of our eyes and live up to the highest calling ever achievable in this life that has been given to us. One day we will all meet our gloriously wonderful and merciful Savior. Imagine the intense heart breaking anguish you will experience if He not only lacks to tell you “Well done,” but He shakes His head at you and tells you how disappointing it was to watch you pass over every opportunity to bless the people He left in your care.